By Taghreed Saadeh
At a critical moment in the history of the Palestinian cause, one we are living through now, the debate has come to revolve around a single question, Should we resist the occupation or not?
Yet this question, in its misleading formulation, has become the arrow that struck Palestinian society at its core.
This is a society that was founded, historically and emotionally on the idea of resisting occupation, on the belief that struggle is a daily practice, not a tactical option nor a seasonal slogan.
Through close reading and careful observation, it became clear to me that the instinctive, not ideological, impulse to defend the achievements of the Palestinian people has centered on the Palestinian Authority. From its inception, the Authority has been subjected to systematic distortion. I have written dozens of articles addressing the conspiracies surrounding it and the volume of misinformation deliberately circulated against it. I have faced criticism from opposition figures, most of whom have not bothered to engage in serious research or genuine follow-up. In much of this criticism, I found exaggeration and, more often, a real deficiency in understanding. When I attempted to correct these narratives, the ready-made response was, “You are defending a collaborator authority.”
Many are unaware of the intellectual shortcomings of these opposition voices, who oppose for the sake of opposition itself rather than on any substantive analysis of the Authority’s policies.
The image of the “collaborator authority” did not emerge by chance in the Palestinian collective consciousness. It was manufactured through directed media, beginning with the massive media apparatus of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and consolidated through major platforms, most notably Al Jazeera, which was originally established to support this political current.
As I move between political programs on Arab television channels and digital platforms, one constant becomes apparent, the persistent attack on the Palestinian Authority. Hamas, on the other hand, is treated differently, some oppose it and consider it an adversary, while others offer it unconditional support. This latter camp is the larger one, enabled, of course, by American political calculations. Al Jazeera, for example, does not operate outside a framework of political approvals, and we are well aware of the nature of Qatar’s relationship with the United States.
The Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, has been rendered fair game since its establishment. No consideration has been afforded to it, unlike other Arab regimes that media outlets traditionally avoid criticizing except in cases of explicit political conflict.
Arab media, for the most part, is divided. There is media that openly supports Hamas, such as Al Jazeera, Al Mayadeen, and Al Alam, and is, by default, aggressively hostile toward the Palestinian Authority. Then there is media that opposes Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, yet does not support the Authority either, keeping it under constant scrutiny under the banner of “freedom of opinion.”
The irony is that Israel openly attacks the Palestinian Authority, and no one seems to pay attention. Those who shape this dominant discourse continue down the same path. When we criticize Hamas, we are told that this is the language of the occupation and of collaborators.
This confusion does not stem from media alone. It is also fueled by research centers largely led by a U.S.-aligned left, which not only defends Hamas but presents itself as the voice of “resistance.” The claim that anyone who supports Hamas is automatically a thinker or a patriot is an insult to reason, a manipulation of public consciousness that attracts audiences unable to distinguish between truth and slogan, or to see beyond surface appearances.
This is a compounded crisis, one that will eventually be exposed, unfortunately, only after opportunities have been lost.
These figures have become opinion leaders simply because they are with Hamas, regardless of the illogical nature of their arguments or the superficiality of their discourse.
16 Total Count
